Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1431

control, N = 721

treatment, N = 711

p-value2

age

141

50.75 ± 12.64 (25 - 74)

51.24 ± 12.39 (25 - 74)

50.28 ± 12.96 (28 - 73)

0.653

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

143

0.879

f

110 (77%)

55 (76%)

55 (77%)

m

33 (23%)

17 (24%)

16 (23%)

occupation

143

0.688

day_training

2 (1.4%)

2 (2.8%)

0 (0%)

full_time

18 (13%)

9 (12%)

9 (13%)

homemaker

12 (8.4%)

5 (6.9%)

7 (9.9%)

other

2 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.8%)

part_time

26 (18%)

12 (17%)

14 (20%)

retired

38 (27%)

19 (26%)

19 (27%)

self_employ

7 (4.9%)

4 (5.6%)

3 (4.2%)

student

2 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.8%)

t_and_e

2 (1.4%)

1 (1.4%)

1 (1.4%)

unemploy

34 (24%)

20 (28%)

14 (20%)

marital

143

0.792

cohabitation

1 (0.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.4%)

divore

15 (10%)

10 (14%)

5 (7.0%)

in_relationship

4 (2.8%)

2 (2.8%)

2 (2.8%)

married

39 (27%)

20 (28%)

19 (27%)

none

72 (50%)

34 (47%)

38 (54%)

seperation

3 (2.1%)

2 (2.8%)

1 (1.4%)

widow

9 (6.3%)

4 (5.6%)

5 (7.0%)

edu

143

0.197

bachelor

35 (24%)

13 (18%)

22 (31%)

diploma

27 (19%)

18 (25%)

9 (13%)

hd_ad

4 (2.8%)

3 (4.2%)

1 (1.4%)

postgraduate

12 (8.4%)

5 (6.9%)

7 (9.9%)

primary

9 (6.3%)

3 (4.2%)

6 (8.5%)

secondary_1_3

16 (11%)

9 (12%)

7 (9.9%)

secondary_4_5

33 (23%)

19 (26%)

14 (20%)

secondary_6_7

7 (4.9%)

2 (2.8%)

5 (7.0%)

fam_income

143

0.981

10001_12000

6 (4.2%)

2 (2.8%)

4 (5.6%)

12001_14000

7 (4.9%)

3 (4.2%)

4 (5.6%)

14001_16000

8 (5.6%)

3 (4.2%)

5 (7.0%)

16001_18000

4 (2.8%)

2 (2.8%)

2 (2.8%)

18001_20000

6 (4.2%)

4 (5.6%)

2 (2.8%)

20001_above

27 (19%)

15 (21%)

12 (17%)

2001_4000

20 (14%)

11 (15%)

9 (13%)

4001_6000

14 (9.8%)

6 (8.3%)

8 (11%)

6001_8000

12 (8.4%)

7 (9.7%)

5 (7.0%)

8001_10000

11 (7.7%)

5 (6.9%)

6 (8.5%)

below_2000

28 (20%)

14 (19%)

14 (20%)

medication

143

125 (87%)

63 (88%)

62 (87%)

0.975

onset_duration

140

15.08 ± 10.20 (0 - 56)

15.80 ± 10.86 (0 - 56)

14.33 ± 9.47 (0 - 35)

0.396

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

138

35.89 ± 14.04 (10 - 65)

35.28 ± 12.65 (10 - 61)

36.52 ± 15.41 (14 - 65)

0.604

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1431

control, N = 721

treatment, N = 711

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

143

3.19 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)

3.25 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.13 ± 1.11 (1 - 5)

0.530

recovery_stage_b

143

17.92 ± 2.79 (8 - 24)

17.89 ± 2.91 (8 - 24)

17.94 ± 2.68 (13 - 24)

0.907

ras_confidence

143

29.97 ± 5.13 (15 - 45)

29.83 ± 4.84 (15 - 40)

30.11 ± 5.43 (18 - 45)

0.746

ras_willingness

143

11.78 ± 2.07 (5 - 15)

11.67 ± 2.06 (5 - 15)

11.90 ± 2.10 (7 - 15)

0.500

ras_goal

143

17.34 ± 3.09 (11 - 25)

17.12 ± 2.88 (11 - 24)

17.55 ± 3.30 (11 - 25)

0.414

ras_reliance

143

13.17 ± 2.93 (5 - 20)

12.99 ± 2.79 (5 - 18)

13.37 ± 3.07 (7 - 20)

0.439

ras_domination

143

9.90 ± 2.41 (3 - 15)

10.17 ± 2.30 (3 - 15)

9.63 ± 2.50 (3 - 15)

0.187

symptom

143

29.97 ± 9.32 (14 - 56)

29.81 ± 9.60 (14 - 55)

30.13 ± 9.08 (15 - 56)

0.838

slof_work

143

22.45 ± 4.82 (10 - 30)

22.75 ± 4.43 (13 - 30)

22.15 ± 5.21 (10 - 30)

0.463

slof_relationship

143

25.10 ± 6.02 (9 - 35)

24.82 ± 6.05 (9 - 35)

25.38 ± 6.03 (11 - 35)

0.580

satisfaction

143

20.50 ± 7.19 (5 - 35)

19.93 ± 6.77 (5 - 33)

21.07 ± 7.59 (5 - 35)

0.345

mhc_emotional

143

10.87 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

10.64 ± 3.69 (3 - 17)

11.11 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)

0.459

mhc_social

143

14.93 ± 5.66 (5 - 30)

14.67 ± 5.59 (5 - 30)

15.20 ± 5.75 (5 - 29)

0.577

mhc_psychological

143

21.87 ± 6.43 (6 - 36)

21.78 ± 6.07 (7 - 36)

21.97 ± 6.82 (6 - 36)

0.858

resilisnce

143

16.64 ± 4.70 (6 - 30)

16.26 ± 4.18 (6 - 24)

17.01 ± 5.18 (6 - 30)

0.342

social_provision

143

13.50 ± 2.93 (5 - 20)

13.10 ± 2.63 (5 - 20)

13.90 ± 3.17 (5 - 20)

0.101

els_value_living

143

16.92 ± 3.15 (5 - 25)

16.58 ± 2.92 (6 - 22)

17.27 ± 3.35 (5 - 25)

0.195

els_life_fulfill

143

12.71 ± 3.42 (4 - 20)

12.35 ± 3.26 (5 - 19)

13.07 ± 3.57 (4 - 20)

0.208

els

143

29.63 ± 5.98 (9 - 45)

28.93 ± 5.50 (11 - 38)

30.34 ± 6.40 (9 - 45)

0.160

social_connect

143

26.65 ± 9.53 (8 - 48)

26.75 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

26.55 ± 9.93 (8 - 48)

0.900

shs_agency

143

14.24 ± 5.19 (3 - 24)

13.90 ± 4.77 (3 - 21)

14.58 ± 5.61 (3 - 24)

0.439

shs_pathway

143

15.99 ± 4.07 (4 - 24)

15.65 ± 3.92 (5 - 24)

16.34 ± 4.21 (4 - 24)

0.315

shs

143

30.23 ± 8.86 (7 - 48)

29.56 ± 8.32 (8 - 45)

30.92 ± 9.39 (7 - 48)

0.361

esteem

143

12.60 ± 1.64 (9 - 20)

12.62 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)

12.58 ± 1.66 (10 - 20)

0.863

mlq_search

143

14.81 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.64 ± 3.34 (6 - 21)

14.99 ± 3.70 (3 - 21)

0.557

mlq_presence

143

13.40 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.32 ± 3.81 (4 - 21)

13.48 ± 4.69 (3 - 21)

0.824

mlq

143

28.21 ± 6.94 (6 - 42)

27.96 ± 6.31 (10 - 40)

28.46 ± 7.56 (6 - 42)

0.664

empower

143

19.23 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

18.93 ± 4.15 (11 - 30)

19.54 ± 4.36 (6 - 30)

0.397

ismi_resistance

143

14.50 ± 2.54 (5 - 20)

14.47 ± 2.19 (10 - 20)

14.52 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)

0.909

ismi_discrimation

143

11.63 ± 3.13 (5 - 20)

11.97 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)

11.28 ± 3.24 (5 - 20)

0.188

sss_affective

143

9.99 ± 3.58 (3 - 18)

10.01 ± 3.49 (3 - 18)

9.97 ± 3.68 (3 - 18)

0.944

sss_behavior

143

9.71 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

9.88 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.55 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

0.608

sss_cognitive

143

8.27 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

8.26 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

8.27 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)

0.995

sss

143

27.97 ± 10.29 (9 - 54)

28.15 ± 10.19 (9 - 54)

27.79 ± 10.47 (9 - 54)

0.833

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.25

0.138

2.98, 3.52

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.123

0.196

-0.508, 0.261

0.531

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.021

0.215

-0.401, 0.443

0.922

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.468

0.305

-0.130, 1.07

0.128

Pseudo R square

0.018

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.337

17.2, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.055

0.478

-0.882, 0.992

0.909

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.493

0.482

-1.44, 0.451

0.309

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.987

0.682

-0.349, 2.32

0.151

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.605

28.6, 31.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.279

0.859

-1.40, 1.96

0.745

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.766

0.672

-0.551, 2.08

0.258

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.00

0.950

-0.862, 2.86

0.296

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.244

11.2, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.235

0.346

-0.444, 0.913

0.499

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.402

0.269

-0.929, 0.124

0.139

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.679

0.380

-0.066, 1.42

0.078

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.1

0.372

16.4, 17.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.424

0.528

-0.611, 1.46

0.423

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.116

0.466

-1.03, 0.797

0.804

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.02

0.659

-0.269, 2.31

0.125

Pseudo R square

0.022

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.339

12.3, 13.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.380

0.481

-0.563, 1.32

0.431

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.374

0.371

-0.354, 1.10

0.317

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.834

0.525

-0.195, 1.86

0.117

Pseudo R square

0.032

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.2

0.276

9.63, 10.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.533

0.392

-1.30, 0.235

0.175

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.431

0.378

-1.17, 0.310

0.258

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.43

0.535

0.382, 2.48

0.009

Pseudo R square

0.023

symptom

(Intercept)

29.8

1.104

27.6, 32.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.321

1.566

-2.75, 3.39

0.838

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.320

0.949

-2.18, 1.54

0.737

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.39

1.342

-4.02, 1.24

0.302

Pseudo R square

0.004

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.8

0.568

21.6, 23.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.595

0.807

-2.18, 0.986

0.462

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.351

0.625

-1.58, 0.875

0.577

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.542

0.885

-1.19, 2.28

0.542

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.8

0.707

23.4, 26.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.561

1.004

-1.41, 2.53

0.577

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.549

0.747

-2.01, 0.914

0.464

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.01

1.056

-1.06, 3.08

0.341

Pseudo R square

0.007

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.9

0.852

18.3, 21.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.14

1.210

-1.23, 3.51

0.347

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.670

0.911

-1.12, 2.46

0.465

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.632

1.289

-1.89, 3.16

0.625

Pseudo R square

0.013

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.444

9.77, 11.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.474

0.630

-0.761, 1.71

0.453

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.262

0.447

-0.614, 1.14

0.560

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.003

0.632

-1.24, 1.24

0.996

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.7

0.687

13.3, 16.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.531

0.975

-1.38, 2.44

0.587

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.776

0.757

-0.707, 2.26

0.308

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.282

1.070

-1.82, 2.38

0.793

Pseudo R square

0.008

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

0.786

20.2, 23.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.194

1.115

-1.99, 2.38

0.862

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.804

0.873

-0.907, 2.52

0.360

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.056

1.235

-2.36, 2.48

0.964

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.541

15.2, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.750

0.767

-0.753, 2.25

0.330

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.036

0.625

-1.19, 1.26

0.955

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.75

0.885

0.020, 3.49

0.051

Pseudo R square

0.035

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.344

12.4, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.804

0.488

-0.153, 1.76

0.102

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.635

0.416

-1.45, 0.180

0.131

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.892

0.589

-0.262, 2.05

0.134

Pseudo R square

0.039

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.374

15.9, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.684

0.530

-0.355, 1.72

0.199

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.232

0.420

-0.591, 1.05

0.583

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.195

0.594

-0.969, 1.36

0.744

Pseudo R square

0.016

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.3

0.396

11.6, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.723

0.562

-0.378, 1.82

0.200

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.377

0.386

-0.380, 1.13

0.333

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.096

0.546

-0.974, 1.17

0.861

Pseudo R square

0.016

els

(Intercept)

28.9

0.704

27.6, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.41

1.000

-0.552, 3.37

0.161

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.612

0.655

-0.672, 1.90

0.353

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.213

0.927

-1.60, 2.03

0.819

Pseudo R square

0.018

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.8

1.138

24.5, 29.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.201

1.616

-3.37, 2.97

0.901

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.07

1.058

-1.00, 3.15

0.314

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.79

1.497

-6.73, -0.858

0.014

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.9

0.611

12.7, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.675

0.867

-1.02, 2.37

0.438

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.058

0.593

-1.22, 1.10

0.922

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.913

0.839

-0.731, 2.56

0.280

Pseudo R square

0.011

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.7

0.473

14.7, 16.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.685

0.671

-0.630, 2.00

0.309

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.107

0.478

-0.829, 1.04

0.823

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.140

0.676

-1.19, 1.46

0.837

Pseudo R square

0.009

shs

(Intercept)

29.6

1.034

27.5, 31.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.36

1.468

-1.52, 4.24

0.356

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.037

0.983

-1.89, 1.96

0.970

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.04

1.391

-1.68, 3.77

0.456

Pseudo R square

0.011

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.182

12.3, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.048

0.258

-0.553, 0.458

0.854

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.128

0.276

-0.413, 0.668

0.644

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.036

0.390

-0.729, 0.800

0.928

Pseudo R square

0.002

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.6

0.412

13.8, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.347

0.585

-0.799, 1.49

0.554

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.489

0.529

-0.549, 1.53

0.359

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.699

0.749

-2.17, 0.769

0.354

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.500

12.3, 14.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.159

0.709

-1.23, 1.55

0.822

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.348

0.573

-0.775, 1.47

0.546

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.077

0.811

-1.51, 1.67

0.924

Pseudo R square

0.002

mlq

(Intercept)

28.0

0.824

26.3, 29.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.506

1.170

-1.79, 2.80

0.666

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.838

0.966

-1.06, 2.73

0.388

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.609

1.367

-3.29, 2.07

0.657

Pseudo R square

0.002

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.498

18.0, 19.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.605

0.706

-0.779, 1.99

0.393

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.539

0.497

-0.435, 1.51

0.282

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.611

0.702

-1.99, 0.766

0.387

Pseudo R square

0.004

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.296

13.9, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.049

0.420

-0.774, 0.871

0.907

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.182

0.398

-0.963, 0.598

0.649

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.877

0.563

-0.227, 1.98

0.123

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.0

0.369

11.2, 12.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.691

0.524

-1.72, 0.337

0.190

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.131

0.413

-0.940, 0.678

0.752

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.106

0.584

-1.25, 1.04

0.856

Pseudo R square

0.014

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.0

0.418

9.20, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.042

0.593

-1.20, 1.12

0.944

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.010

0.455

-0.882, 0.902

0.983

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.18

0.644

-2.44, 0.085

0.072

Pseudo R square

0.015

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.88

0.441

9.01, 10.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.326

0.626

-1.55, 0.901

0.604

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.167

0.478

-1.10, 0.769

0.728

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.528

0.676

-1.85, 0.797

0.437

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.26

0.438

7.41, 9.12

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.004

0.621

-1.21, 1.22

0.995

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.414

0.486

-0.538, 1.37

0.397

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.30

0.687

-2.64, 0.051

0.063

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss

(Intercept)

28.2

1.205

25.8, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.364

1.710

-3.71, 2.99

0.832

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.155

1.188

-2.17, 2.48

0.896

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.78

1.681

-6.08, 0.512

0.102

Pseudo R square

0.011

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.25 (95% CI [2.98, 3.52], t(201) = 23.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.26], t(201) = -0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.44], t(201) = 0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.07], t(201) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.90])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.89 (95% CI [17.23, 18.55], t(201) = 53.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.99], t(201) = 0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.45], t(201) = -1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.32], t(201) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [28.65, 31.02], t(201) = 49.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.96], t(201) = 0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.08], t(201) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.86], t(201) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.19, 12.14], t(201) = 47.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.91], t(201) = 0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.12], t(201) = -1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.42], t(201) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.69])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.13 (95% CI [16.40, 17.85], t(201) = 46.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.46], t(201) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.80], t(201) = -0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 2.31], t(201) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.99 (95% CI [12.32, 13.65], t(201) = 38.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.32], t(201) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.10], t(201) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.86], t(201) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.17 (95% CI [9.63, 10.71], t(201) = 36.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.23], t(201) = -1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.31], t(201) = -1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [0.38, 2.48], t(201) = 2.67, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.16, 1.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.81 (95% CI [27.64, 31.97], t(201) = 27.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-2.75, 3.39], t(201) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.18, 1.54], t(201) = -0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.39, 95% CI [-4.02, 1.24], t(201) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.75 (95% CI [21.64, 23.86], t(201) = 40.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-2.18, 0.99], t(201) = -0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.87], t(201) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.28], t(201) = 0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.82 (95% CI [23.43, 26.21], t(201) = 35.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.41, 2.53], t(201) = 0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.91], t(201) = -0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.06, 3.08], t(201) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.93 (95% CI [18.26, 21.60], t(201) = 23.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-1.23, 3.51], t(201) = 0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.46], t(201) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.89, 3.16], t(201) = 0.49, p = 0.624; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.64 (95% CI [9.77, 11.51], t(201) = 23.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.71], t(201) = 0.75, p = 0.452; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.14], t(201) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.07e-03, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.24], t(201) = 4.86e-03, p = 0.996; Std. beta = 8.16e-04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.20e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.67 (95% CI [13.32, 16.01], t(201) = 21.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.44], t(201) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.26], t(201) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.82, 2.38], t(201) = 0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.78 (95% CI [20.24, 23.32], t(201) = 27.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.38], t(201) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.52], t(201) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.36, 2.48], t(201) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 8.53e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.26 (95% CI [15.20, 17.32], t(201) = 30.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.25], t(201) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.26], t(201) = 0.06, p = 0.954; Std. beta = 7.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.75, 95% CI [0.02, 3.49], t(201) = 1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [4.42e-03, 0.76])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.10 (95% CI [12.42, 13.77], t(201) = 38.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.76], t(201) = 1.65, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.18], t(201) = -1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.26, 2.05], t(201) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.69])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.58 (95% CI [15.85, 17.32], t(201) = 44.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.36, 1.72], t(201) = 1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.05], t(201) = 0.55, p = 0.581; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.36], t(201) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.35 (95% CI [11.57, 13.12], t(201) = 31.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.82], t(201) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.13], t(201) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.17], t(201) = 0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.93 (95% CI [27.55, 30.31], t(201) = 41.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-0.55, 3.37], t(201) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.90], t(201) = 0.93, p = 0.350; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.60, 2.03], t(201) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.75 (95% CI [24.52, 28.98], t(201) = 23.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-3.37, 2.97], t(201) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.15], t(201) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.79, 95% CI [-6.73, -0.86], t(201) = -2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.90 (95% CI [12.71, 15.10], t(201) = 22.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.02, 2.37], t(201) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.10], t(201) = -0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.56], t(201) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.65 (95% CI [14.73, 16.58], t(201) = 33.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.00], t(201) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.04], t(201) = 0.22, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.46], t(201) = 0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [27.53, 31.58], t(201) = 28.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.36, 95% CI [-1.52, 4.24], t(201) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.96], t(201) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 4.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-1.68, 3.77], t(201) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.62 (95% CI [12.27, 12.98], t(201) = 69.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.46], t(201) = -0.18, p = 0.854; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.67], t(201) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.80], t(201) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.64 (95% CI [13.83, 15.45], t(201) = 35.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.49], t(201) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.53], t(201) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.77], t(201) = -0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.32 (95% CI [12.34, 14.30], t(201) = 26.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.55], t(201) = 0.22, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.47], t(201) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.67], t(201) = 0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.96 (95% CI [26.34, 29.57], t(201) = 33.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.80], t(201) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.73], t(201) = 0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-3.29, 2.07], t(201) = -0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.93 (95% CI [17.96, 19.91], t(201) = 38.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.99], t(201) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.51], t(201) = 1.08, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.77], t(201) = -0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.89, 15.05], t(201) = 48.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.87], t(201) = 0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.60], t(201) = -0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.98], t(201) = 1.56, p = 0.120; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.97 (95% CI [11.25, 12.70], t(201) = 32.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.34], t(201) = -1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.68], t(201) = -0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.04], t(201) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.20, 10.83], t(201) = 23.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.12], t(201) = -0.07, p = 0.943; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.90e-03, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.90], t(201) = 0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = 2.76e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.09], t(201) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.88 (95% CI [9.01, 10.74], t(201) = 22.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.90], t(201) = -0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.77], t(201) = -0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.85, 0.80], t(201) = -0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.26 (95% CI [7.41, 9.12], t(201) = 18.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.72e-03, 95% CI [-1.21, 1.22], t(201) = 5.98e-03, p = 0.995; Std. beta = 9.92e-04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.37], t(201) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.64, 0.05], t(201) = -1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.01])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.15 (95% CI [25.79, 30.51], t(201) = 23.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-3.71, 2.99], t(201) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-2.17, 2.48], t(201) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.78, 95% CI [-6.08, 0.51], t(201) = -1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

652.713

662.711

-323.356

646.713

recovery_stage_a

random

6

653.611

673.607

-320.806

641.611

5.102

3

0.165

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,011.116

1,021.115

-502.558

1,005.116

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,014.483

1,034.479

-501.241

1,002.483

2.634

3

0.452

ras_confidence

null

3

1,231.791

1,241.790

-612.896

1,225.791

ras_confidence

random

6

1,229.286

1,249.282

-608.643

1,217.286

8.506

3

0.037

ras_willingness

null

3

851.093

861.091

-422.547

845.093

ras_willingness

random

6

852.323

872.319

-420.162

840.323

4.770

3

0.189

ras_goal

null

3

1,041.422

1,051.420

-517.711

1,035.422

ras_goal

random

6

1,041.721

1,061.717

-514.860

1,029.721

5.701

3

0.127

ras_reliance

null

3

994.704

1,004.702

-494.352

988.704

ras_reliance

random

6

987.991

1,007.987

-487.995

975.991

12.713

3

0.005

ras_domination

null

3

929.653

939.651

-461.827

923.653

ras_domination

random

6

927.598

947.594

-457.799

915.598

8.055

3

0.045

symptom

null

3

1,444.971

1,454.969

-719.485

1,438.971

symptom

random

6

1,447.575

1,467.571

-717.787

1,435.575

3.396

3

0.334

slof_work

null

3

1,197.123

1,207.121

-595.561

1,191.123

slof_work

random

6

1,202.347

1,222.343

-595.173

1,190.347

0.776

3

0.855

slof_relationship

null

3

1,283.676

1,293.674

-638.838

1,277.676

slof_relationship

random

6

1,288.032

1,308.028

-638.016

1,276.032

1.644

3

0.649

satisfaction

null

3

1,364.631

1,374.629

-679.315

1,358.631

satisfaction

random

6

1,366.779

1,386.775

-677.389

1,354.779

3.852

3

0.278

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,084.968

1,094.967

-539.484

1,078.968

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,089.651

1,109.647

-538.825

1,077.651

1.318

3

0.725

mhc_social

null

3

1,278.561

1,288.559

-636.280

1,272.561

mhc_social

random

6

1,281.118

1,301.114

-634.559

1,269.118

3.443

3

0.328

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,333.582

1,343.580

-663.791

1,327.582

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,337.692

1,357.688

-662.846

1,325.692

1.890

3

0.596

resilisnce

null

3

1,191.850

1,201.848

-592.925

1,185.850

resilisnce

random

6

1,187.380

1,207.376

-587.690

1,175.380

10.470

3

0.015

social_provision

null

3

1,007.032

1,017.030

-500.516

1,001.032

social_provision

random

6

1,005.476

1,025.473

-496.738

993.476

7.556

3

0.056

els_value_living

null

3

1,028.705

1,038.703

-511.353

1,022.705

els_value_living

random

6

1,031.289

1,051.285

-509.644

1,019.289

3.416

3

0.332

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,036.701

1,046.699

-515.351

1,030.701

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,038.338

1,058.335

-513.169

1,026.338

4.363

3

0.225

els

null

3

1,270.043

1,280.041

-632.021

1,264.043

els

random

6

1,271.308

1,291.304

-629.654

1,259.308

4.735

3

0.192

social_connect

null

3

1,471.966

1,481.964

-732.983

1,465.966

social_connect

random

6

1,469.929

1,489.925

-728.964

1,457.929

8.037

3

0.045

shs_agency

null

3

1,214.678

1,224.676

-604.339

1,208.678

shs_agency

random

6

1,217.428

1,237.424

-602.714

1,205.428

3.250

3

0.355

shs_pathway

null

3

1,111.779

1,121.777

-552.889

1,105.779

shs_pathway

random

6

1,116.229

1,136.226

-552.115

1,104.229

1.549

3

0.671

shs

null

3

1,429.503

1,439.501

-711.751

1,423.503

shs

random

6

1,432.999

1,452.995

-710.499

1,420.999

2.504

3

0.475

esteem

null

3

758.939

768.937

-376.469

752.939

esteem

random

6

764.335

784.331

-376.167

752.335

0.604

3

0.896

mlq_search

null

3

1,081.982

1,091.980

-537.991

1,075.982

mlq_search

random

6

1,086.855

1,106.851

-537.428

1,074.855

1.126

3

0.771

mlq_presence

null

3

1,148.965

1,158.963

-571.482

1,142.965

mlq_presence

random

6

1,153.955

1,173.952

-570.978

1,141.955

1.009

3

0.799

mlq

null

3

1,358.510

1,368.508

-676.255

1,352.510

mlq

random

6

1,363.581

1,383.577

-675.790

1,351.581

0.930

3

0.818

empower

null

3

1,131.526

1,141.524

-562.763

1,125.526

empower

random

6

1,135.850

1,155.846

-561.925

1,123.850

1.676

3

0.642

ismi_resistance

null

3

952.196

962.194

-473.098

946.196

ismi_resistance

random

6

954.423

974.419

-471.211

942.423

3.773

3

0.287

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,022.208

1,032.206

-508.104

1,016.208

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,025.774

1,045.770

-506.887

1,013.774

2.434

3

0.487

sss_affective

null

3

1,074.728

1,084.727

-534.364

1,068.728

sss_affective

random

6

1,073.820

1,093.816

-530.910

1,061.820

6.909

3

0.075

sss_behavior

null

3

1,092.453

1,102.451

-543.226

1,086.453

sss_behavior

random

6

1,095.615

1,115.611

-541.807

1,083.615

2.838

3

0.417

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,093.615

1,103.613

-543.808

1,087.615

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,095.276

1,115.272

-541.638

1,083.276

4.339

3

0.227

sss

null

3

1,499.796

1,509.794

-746.898

1,493.796

sss

random

6

1,500.469

1,520.465

-744.234

1,488.469

5.327

3

0.149

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

72

3.25 ± 1.17

71

3.13 ± 1.17

0.531

0.129

recovery_stage_a

2nd

32

3.27 ± 1.14

-0.022

32

3.62 ± 1.14

-0.512

0.230

-0.361

recovery_stage_b

1st

72

17.89 ± 2.86

71

17.94 ± 2.86

0.909

-0.026

recovery_stage_b

2nd

32

17.40 ± 2.70

0.236

32

18.44 ± 2.70

-0.237

0.124

-0.499

ras_confidence

1st

72

29.83 ± 5.13

71

30.11 ± 5.13

0.745

-0.100

ras_confidence

2nd

32

30.60 ± 4.39

-0.273

32

31.88 ± 4.40

-0.629

0.246

-0.456

ras_willingness

1st

72

11.67 ± 2.07

71

11.90 ± 2.07

0.499

-0.209

ras_willingness

2nd

32

11.26 ± 1.76

0.359

32

12.18 ± 1.77

-0.247

0.040

-0.815

ras_goal

1st

72

17.13 ± 3.16

71

17.55 ± 3.16

0.423

-0.215

ras_goal

2nd

32

17.01 ± 2.82

0.059

32

18.46 ± 2.83

-0.459

0.042

-0.733

ras_reliance

1st

72

12.99 ± 2.88

71

13.37 ± 2.88

0.431

-0.245

ras_reliance

2nd

32

13.36 ± 2.45

-0.242

32

14.57 ± 2.45

-0.780

0.049

-0.784

ras_domination

1st

72

10.17 ± 2.34

71

9.63 ± 2.34

0.175

0.328

ras_domination

2nd

32

9.74 ± 2.17

0.265

32

10.63 ± 2.17

-0.615

0.100

-0.552

symptom

1st

72

29.81 ± 9.36

71

30.13 ± 9.36

0.838

-0.083

symptom

2nd

32

29.49 ± 7.38

0.082

32

28.41 ± 7.40

0.441

0.562

0.276

slof_work

1st

72

22.75 ± 4.82

71

22.15 ± 4.82

0.462

0.228

slof_work

2nd

32

22.40 ± 4.11

0.134

32

22.35 ± 4.12

-0.073

0.959

0.020

slof_relationship

1st

72

24.82 ± 6.00

71

25.38 ± 6.00

0.577

-0.181

slof_relationship

2nd

32

24.27 ± 5.04

0.177

32

25.84 ± 5.05

-0.149

0.214

-0.507

satisfaction

1st

72

19.93 ± 7.23

71

21.07 ± 7.23

0.347

-0.301

satisfaction

2nd

32

20.60 ± 6.10

-0.177

32

22.37 ± 6.11

-0.343

0.247

-0.467

mhc_emotional

1st

72

10.64 ± 3.77

71

11.11 ± 3.77

0.453

-0.256

mhc_emotional

2nd

32

10.90 ± 3.11

-0.141

32

11.38 ± 3.12

-0.143

0.541

-0.258

mhc_social

1st

72

14.67 ± 5.83

71

15.20 ± 5.83

0.587

-0.168

mhc_social

2nd

32

15.44 ± 4.97

-0.246

32

16.26 ± 4.98

-0.335

0.514

-0.257

mhc_psychological

1st

72

21.78 ± 6.67

71

21.97 ± 6.67

0.862

-0.053

mhc_psychological

2nd

32

22.58 ± 5.70

-0.221

32

22.83 ± 5.71

-0.236

0.861

-0.069

resilisnce

1st

72

16.26 ± 4.59

71

17.01 ± 4.59

0.330

-0.286

resilisnce

2nd

32

16.30 ± 3.98

-0.014

32

18.80 ± 3.99

-0.682

0.013

-0.955

social_provision

1st

72

13.10 ± 2.92

71

13.90 ± 2.92

0.102

-0.458

social_provision

2nd

32

12.46 ± 2.58

0.362

32

14.16 ± 2.58

-0.146

0.009

-0.967

els_value_living

1st

72

16.58 ± 3.17

71

17.27 ± 3.17

0.199

-0.390

els_value_living

2nd

32

16.81 ± 2.72

-0.132

32

17.69 ± 2.73

-0.243

0.198

-0.501

els_life_fulfill

1st

72

12.35 ± 3.36

71

13.07 ± 3.36

0.200

-0.454

els_life_fulfill

2nd

32

12.72 ± 2.75

-0.236

32

13.54 ± 2.75

-0.296

0.235

-0.514

els

1st

72

28.93 ± 5.98

71

30.34 ± 5.98

0.161

-0.521

els

2nd

32

29.54 ± 4.82

-0.227

32

31.16 ± 4.83

-0.306

0.181

-0.600

social_connect

1st

72

26.75 ± 9.66

71

26.55 ± 9.66

0.901

0.046

social_connect

2nd

32

27.82 ± 7.78

-0.246

32

23.83 ± 7.81

0.624

0.042

0.916

shs_agency

1st

72

13.90 ± 5.18

71

14.58 ± 5.18

0.438

-0.276

shs_agency

2nd

32

13.84 ± 4.23

0.024

32

15.43 ± 4.25

-0.349

0.136

-0.648

shs_pathway

1st

72

15.65 ± 4.01

71

16.34 ± 4.01

0.309

-0.346

shs_pathway

2nd

32

15.76 ± 3.32

-0.054

32

16.59 ± 3.33

-0.125

0.322

-0.417

shs

1st

72

29.56 ± 8.78

71

30.92 ± 8.78

0.356

-0.335

shs

2nd

32

29.59 ± 7.12

-0.009

32

32.00 ± 7.14

-0.266

0.179

-0.592

esteem

1st

72

12.62 ± 1.54

71

12.58 ± 1.54

0.854

0.039

esteem

2nd

32

12.75 ± 1.49

-0.106

32

12.74 ± 1.49

-0.135

0.974

0.010

mlq_search

1st

72

14.64 ± 3.50

71

14.99 ± 3.50

0.554

-0.154

mlq_search

2nd

32

15.13 ± 3.16

-0.217

32

14.78 ± 3.16

0.093

0.657

0.156

mlq_presence

1st

72

13.32 ± 4.24

71

13.48 ± 4.24

0.822

-0.066

mlq_presence

2nd

32

13.67 ± 3.67

-0.145

32

13.90 ± 3.68

-0.177

0.797

-0.099

mlq

1st

72

27.96 ± 6.99

71

28.46 ± 6.99

0.666

-0.125

mlq

2nd

32

28.80 ± 6.10

-0.206

32

28.69 ± 6.11

-0.056

0.947

0.025

empower

1st

72

18.93 ± 4.22

71

19.54 ± 4.22

0.393

-0.294

empower

2nd

32

19.47 ± 3.48

-0.262

32

19.46 ± 3.49

0.035

0.994

0.003

ismi_resistance

1st

72

14.47 ± 2.51

71

14.52 ± 2.51

0.907

-0.029

ismi_resistance

2nd

32

14.29 ± 2.31

0.107

32

15.22 ± 2.31

-0.407

0.111

-0.543

ismi_discrimation

1st

72

11.97 ± 3.13

71

11.28 ± 3.13

0.190

0.400

ismi_discrimation

2nd

32

11.84 ± 2.69

0.076

32

11.04 ± 2.69

0.138

0.237

0.462

sss_affective

1st

72

10.01 ± 3.55

71

9.97 ± 3.55

0.944

0.022

sss_affective

2nd

32

10.02 ± 3.01

-0.005

32

8.81 ± 3.02

0.615

0.107

0.642

sss_behavior

1st

72

9.88 ± 3.74

71

9.55 ± 3.74

0.604

0.164

sss_behavior

2nd

32

9.71 ± 3.17

0.084

32

8.85 ± 3.18

0.349

0.284

0.429

sss_cognitive

1st

72

8.26 ± 3.71

71

8.27 ± 3.71

0.995

-0.002

sss_cognitive

2nd

32

8.68 ± 3.17

-0.204

32

7.39 ± 3.18

0.435

0.105

0.637

sss

1st

72

28.15 ± 10.22

71

27.79 ± 10.22

0.832

0.074

sss

2nd

32

28.31 ± 8.39

-0.032

32

25.16 ± 8.41

0.535

0.136

0.640

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(190.25) = -0.63, p = 0.531, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.26)

2st

t(196.37) = 1.20, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.91)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(180.86) = 0.11, p = 0.909, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.00)

2st

t(194.19) = 1.55, p = 0.124, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.37)

ras_confidence

1st

t(162.11) = 0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.97)

2st

t(199.55) = 1.16, p = 0.246, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.44)

ras_willingness

1st

t(161.71) = 0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.92)

2st

t(199.79) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.78)

ras_goal

1st

t(169.38) = 0.80, p = 0.423, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.47)

2st

t(195.82) = 2.05, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.84)

ras_reliance

1st

t(161.42) = 0.79, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.33)

2st

t(199.97) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.42)

ras_domination

1st

t(176.73) = -1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.24)

2st

t(194.17) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.97)

symptom

1st

t(152.60) = 0.21, p = 0.838, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.77 to 3.42)

2st

t(202.54) = -0.58, p = 0.562, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-4.72 to 2.57)

slof_work

1st

t(161.67) = -0.74, p = 0.462, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.19 to 1.00)

2st

t(199.82) = -0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.08 to 1.97)

slof_relationship

1st

t(159.72) = 0.56, p = 0.577, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.42 to 2.54)

2st

t(200.99) = 1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.91 to 4.06)

satisfaction

1st

t(160.28) = 0.94, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.25 to 3.53)

2st

t(200.66) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.24 to 4.78)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(157.70) = 0.75, p = 0.453, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.72)

2st

t(202.08) = 0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.01)

mhc_social

1st

t(161.69) = 0.54, p = 0.587, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.46)

2st

t(199.81) = 0.65, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.64 to 3.27)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(162.15) = 0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.01 to 2.40)

2st

t(199.53) = 0.18, p = 0.861, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.56 to 3.06)

resilisnce

1st

t(164.36) = 0.98, p = 0.330, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.26)

2st

t(198.23) = 2.51, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (0.54 to 4.47)

social_provision

1st

t(167.04) = 1.65, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.77)

2st

t(196.82) = 2.63, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (0.42 to 2.97)

els_value_living

1st

t(162.72) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.73)

2st

t(199.18) = 1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.22)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(156.48) = 1.29, p = 0.200, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.83)

2st

t(202.60) = 1.19, p = 0.235, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.18)

els

1st

t(154.91) = 1.41, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.57 to 3.38)

2st

t(202.98) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.76 to 4.00)

social_connect

1st

t(154.87) = -0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-3.39 to 2.99)

2st

t(202.98) = -2.05, p = 0.042, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-7.84 to -0.15)

shs_agency

1st

t(156.34) = 0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.39)

2st

t(202.65) = 1.50, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.50 to 3.68)

shs_pathway

1st

t(157.87) = 1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.01)

2st

t(202.00) = 0.99, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.46)

shs

1st

t(155.61) = 0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.54 to 4.26)

2st

t(202.86) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.11 to 5.92)

esteem

1st

t(187.25) = -0.18, p = 0.854, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.46)

2st

t(195.39) = -0.03, p = 0.974, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.72)

mlq_search

1st

t(171.33) = 0.59, p = 0.554, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.50)

2st

t(195.16) = -0.44, p = 0.657, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.21)

mlq_presence

1st

t(163.85) = 0.22, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.56)

2st

t(198.51) = 0.26, p = 0.797, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.57 to 2.05)

mlq

1st

t(165.12) = 0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.80 to 2.82)

2st

t(197.80) = -0.07, p = 0.947, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-3.11 to 2.91)

empower

1st

t(157.37) = 0.86, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.00)

2st

t(202.24) = -0.01, p = 0.994, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.71)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(175.21) = 0.12, p = 0.907, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.88)

2st

t(194.33) = 1.60, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.21 to 2.07)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(162.43) = -1.32, p = 0.190, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.34)

2st

t(199.36) = -1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-2.12 to 0.53)

sss_affective

1st

t(161.17) = -0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.13)

2st

t(200.12) = -1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.70 to 0.27)

sss_behavior

1st

t(160.88) = -0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.91)

2st

t(200.30) = -1.08, p = 0.284, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.42 to 0.71)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(162.10) = 0.01, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.23)

2st

t(199.55) = -1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.86 to 0.27)

sss

1st

t(156.92) = -0.21, p = 0.832, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-3.74 to 3.01)

2st

t(202.43) = -1.50, p = 0.136, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-7.29 to 1.00)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(97.05) = 2.25, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(88.10) = 1.02, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.46)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(74.45) = 2.62, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.42 to 3.11)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(74.20) = 1.03, p = 0.616, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.81)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(79.32) = 1.94, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.84)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(74.01) = 3.24, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.47 to 1.95)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(84.75) = 2.63, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.76)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(68.60) = -1.80, p = 0.152, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.61 to 0.18)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(74.17) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.44)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(72.93) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.96)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(73.29) = 1.42, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.52 to 3.12)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(71.68) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.16)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(74.18) = 1.39, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.57)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(74.48) = 0.98, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.61)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(75.91) = 2.85, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.54 to 3.04)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(77.71) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.09)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(74.85) = 1.01, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.27)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(70.93) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.24)

els

1st vs 2st

t(69.97) = 1.26, p = 0.427, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.49 to 2.14)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(69.95) = -2.56, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-4.84 to -0.60)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(70.84) = 1.44, p = 0.310, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.04)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(71.78) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.20)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(70.40) = 1.09, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.05)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(93.93) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.71)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(80.71) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.85)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(75.58) = 0.74, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.57)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(76.42) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.16)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(71.47) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.92)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(83.57) = 1.73, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.49)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(74.66) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.59)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(73.85) = -2.55, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.08 to -0.26)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(73.66) = -1.45, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.65 to 0.26)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(74.45) = -1.81, p = 0.149, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.09)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(71.20) = -2.20, p = 0.061, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.00 to -0.25)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(97.56) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.45)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(88.46) = -1.02, p = 0.624, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.47)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(74.61) = 1.14, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.11)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(74.35) = -1.49, p = 0.280, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.13)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(79.55) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.81)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(74.16) = 1.00, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.12)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(85.06) = -1.13, p = 0.520, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.32)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(68.68) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.22 to 1.58)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(74.32) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.90)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(73.07) = -0.73, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.94)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(73.43) = 0.73, p = 0.932, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.49)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(71.80) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.16)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(74.34) = 1.02, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.29)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(74.64) = 0.92, p = 0.723, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.55)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(76.09) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.29)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(77.91) = -1.52, p = 0.265, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.20)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(75.01) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.07)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(71.04) = 0.97, p = 0.668, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.15)

els

1st vs 2st

t(70.07) = 0.93, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.92)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(70.05) = 1.01, p = 0.631, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.19)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(70.95) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.13)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(71.90) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.06)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(70.50) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.00)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(94.38) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.68)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(80.96) = 0.92, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.55)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(75.76) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.49)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(76.61) = 0.86, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.77)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(71.59) = 1.08, p = 0.566, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.53)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(83.86) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.61)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(74.82) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.69)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(74.00) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.92)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(73.81) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.79)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(74.61) = 0.85, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.39)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(71.31) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.22 to 2.53)

Plot

Clinical significance